MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115487027 · doi:10.1039/d0cs00384k

Radiolabelling of nanomaterials for medical imaging and therapy

2021· review· en· W3115487027 on OpenAlexaff
Juan Pellico, Peter J. Gawne, Rafael T. M. de Rosales

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Society Reviews · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiopharmaceutical Chemistry and Applications
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilCentro Nacional de Investigaciones CardiovascularesCentre For Medical Engineering, King’s College LondonUniversity of OxfordKing's College LondonCancer Research UKWellcome TrustMedical Research CouncilWellcome
KeywordsBiodistributionContext (archaeology)Positron emission tomographyNanomedicineMedical physicsSingle-photon emission computed tomographyClinical PracticeRadionuclide therapyMedicineComputer scienceNanotechnologyNuclear medicineIn vivoMaterials scienceNanoparticleBiotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nanomaterials offer unique physical, chemical and biological properties of interest for medical imaging and therapy. Over the last two decades, there has been an increasing effort to translate nanomaterial-based medicinal products (so-called nanomedicines) into clinical practice and, although multiple nanoparticle-based formulations are clinically available, there is still a disparity between the number of pre-clinical products and those that reach clinical approval. To facilitate the efficient clinical translation of nanomedicinal-drugs, it is important to study their whole-body biodistribution and pharmacokinetics from the early stages of their development. Integrating this knowledge with that of their therapeutic profile and/or toxicity should provide a powerful combination to efficiently inform nanomedicine trials and allow early selection of the most promising candidates. In this context, radiolabelling nanomaterials allows whole-body and non-invasive in vivo tracking by the sensitive clinical imaging techniques positron emission tomography (PET), and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). Furthermore, certain radionuclides with specific nuclear emissions can elicit therapeutic effects by themselves, leading to radionuclide-based therapy. To ensure robust information during the development of nanomaterials for PET/SPECT imaging and/or radionuclide therapy, selection of the most appropriate radiolabelling method and knowledge of its limitations are critical. Different radiolabelling strategies are available depending on the type of material, the radionuclide and/or the final application. In this review we describe the different radiolabelling strategies currently available, with a critical vision over their advantages and disadvantages. The final aim is to review the most relevant and up-to-date knowledge available in this field, and support the efficient clinical translation of future nanomedicinal products for in vivo imaging and/or therapy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations284
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemical Society ReviewsSame topicRadiopharmaceutical Chemistry and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207